Wednesday, December 08, 2010

John Lennon (1940 - 1980)

John Lennon died on Dec. 8, 1980 when he was shot four times in the back by Mark David Chapman. His ashes were scattered by Yoko Ono in Central Park in New York at the site of the Strawberry Fields Memorial.

That was thirty years ago today. A whole new generation has grown up since then and I fear we are in great danger of forgetting what Lennon and The Beatles did to help change our culture for the better.

I still miss him, for the music I'll always love, and his timeless ability to cut to the heart of a situation.

I say "timeless" because, if you look today at what were thought to be examples of Lennon's craziness, like his honeymoon "bed-in" for peace, you'll find it's the reporters who seem clueless and self-important (as well as rude), while Lennon's remarks about generating publicity for efforts to stop war come across as clear, incisive and relevant (unfortunately not only at the time he made them, but for yet more wars unto the present day and forever and ever amen).

I fear we are in great danger of forgetting what Lennon and The Beatles did to help change our culture for the better.

Yes, we’re in “great danger” of forgetting the crucial role he/they played in mainstreaming the criminal use of marijuana, LSD and heroin into our culture. And who could possibly disparage Lennon’s not so subtle celebration of infidelity in “Norwegian Wood?"—or how he lavished his wealth on his first born, Julian, by abandoning him and his mother when he was a child? And I’ll never forget his whopping $500 donation to the NYPD for bullet-proof vests shortly before he died (that musta bought what, maybe two?).

But I digress… getting back to his “contribution” to our culture, who could deny the critical importance of lending his name to songs like “Why Don’t We Do it in the Road?” And surely, all who’ve listened to the lyrics of “Mean Mr. Mustard,” “Everybody’s Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey” (and especially) “Revolution 9” must stand in awe of this intellectual giant among men.

And above all, given that actions speak louder than words, this man stood alone as a cultural leader when he asked us "how easy" it is for one to "imagine no possessions” while maintaining a personal wealth of over $200 million…

Yes, what that individual did to help change our culture "for the better" is, immeasurable…

And above all, given that actions speak louder than words... while maintaining a personal wealth of over $200 million...

And what are we to think of the hundreds of millions of Christians who, having been told by their god in the flesh to sell all that they own and give the money to the poor, and to hate their parents, spouses, children, and siblings and follow him, who instead indulge in family life and personal luxury and comfort? At least Lennon said "imagine". It was the supposition of a finite being, not a commandment from the supposed creator of the universe, permanent and perfect outside of time and space, come down to Bethlehem to sacrifice himself to himself for a couple of nights over the course of a long weekend. :/

I’ve finally recovered from my disk failure and will respond to our discussion on reason and metaphysics soon. Thank you for your patience.

Given that your queries here require shorter responses (and the late hour at which I’m available), I thought it would be more practical to respond to them first.

what are we to think of the hundreds of millions of Christians who, having been told by their god in the flesh to sell all that they own and give the money to the poor… who instead indulge in family life and personal luxury and comfort?

Well, first of all, there is nothing in any of the accounts of Matthew 19:21-22, Mark 10:21-22, or Luke 18:22-23 that indicates that our God in the flesh’s command to the wealthy man was meant for all Christians. It was clearly a prescription for the spiritual ailment of that individual. However, that’s not to say that it cannot apply to anyone else suffering from that same affliction—the bottom line is clear: we can choose to worship our possessions or our Lord.

…and to hate their parents, spouses, children, and siblings and follow him…

Two points here. First, English is a far richer language than Aramaic or Greek. Greek is a pretty all-or-nothing kind of language. It’s pretty good at describing love or hate—but pretty useless at describing just “liking,” “disliking,” or “preferring” someone over another. So, is it any wonder that the English translators (wanting to maintain as close a translation as possible) chose the nearest English counterparts for words? The word “hate,” used to indicate priority and preference rather than disdain, is seen throughout the Bible (see Malachi 1:2-3). Second, with that in mind, this reference to preferring immediate family members to Christ becomes abundantly clear when viewed in light of Matthew 10:37 – “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

In the future, may I suggest you employ an exegesis rather than ill-informed eisegesis of the Scripture that you attempt to malign?

Laurence A. Moran

Larry Moran is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. You can contact him by looking up his email address on the University of Toronto website.

Sandwalk

The Sandwalk is the path behind the home of Charles Darwin where he used to walk every day, thinking about science. You can see the path in the woods in the upper left-hand corner of this image.

Disclaimer

Some readers of this blog may be under the impression that my personal opinions represent the official position of Canada, the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, the University of Toronto, the Faculty of Medicine, or the Department of Biochemistry. All of these institutions, plus every single one of my colleagues, students, friends, and relatives, want you to know that I do not speak for them. You should also know that they don't speak for me.

Subscribe to Sandwalk

Quotations

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.Charles Darwin (c1880)Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.

Charles Darwin (1859)Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation...

Quotations

The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake.
Stephen Jay Gould (1982)
I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p.1339
The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1977)
Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980)
Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p.335
The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.
Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p.84

Quotations

My own view is that conclusions about the evolution of human behavior should be based on research at least as rigorous as that used in studying nonhuman animals. And if you read the animal behavior journals, you'll see that this requirement sets the bar pretty high, so that many assertions about evolutionary psychology sink without a trace.

Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution Is TrueI once made the remark that two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and that only one of them should be allowed to come back.

Sydney Brenner
TIBS Dec. 2000
It is naïve to think that if a species' environment changes the species must adapt or else become extinct.... Just as a changed environment need not set in motion selection for new adaptations, new adaptations may evolve in an unchanging environment if new mutations arise that are superior to any pre-existing variations

Douglas Futuyma
One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.

Francis Crick
There will be no difficulty in computers being adapted to biology. There will be luddites. But they will be buried.

Sydney Brenner
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

Richard Dawkins
Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understand it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.

Jacques Monod
The false view of evolution as a process of global optimizing has been applied literally by engineers who, taken in by a mistaken metaphor, have attempted to find globally optimal solutions to design problems by writing programs that model evolution by natural selection.